26th-November-and-judicial-commission

 

November 26: The Case for an Independent Judicial Inquiry

The November 26, 2024 events remain one of the most disputed episodes in Pakistan's recent political history. PTI and the government have presented fundamentally different accounts of what happened, including the deaths of protesters and security personnel.

One important issue is the death of Rangers personnel who were struck by an SUV on Srinagar Highway. The driver, Muhammad Hashim Abbasi, was arrested and subsequently prosecuted. The Anti-Terrorism Court formally commenced his trial in July 2026. Earlier court reporting also noted that the prosecution had not established a direct connection between the accused driver and PTI.

This distinction is constitutionally important. The criminal responsibility of an individual driver is one question; responsibility for the overall use of force during a political protest is another. One case cannot automatically establish the responsibility—or innocence—of every other participant or public official.

Why Is a Judicial Inquiry Still Necessary?

Imran Khan and PTI have repeatedly demanded an independent judicial inquiry to determine who was responsible for the deaths and injuries of November 26.

That demand deserves examination through evidence rather than political allegations.

A proper inquiry should establish:

• the exact number and identity of people killed and injured;
• the cause of every death through medical and forensic evidence;
• who authorized the deployment and use of force;
• what orders were issued to police, Rangers and other security personnel;
• whether any unlawful force was used against peaceful protesters;
• whether any protesters committed violence and, if so, which individuals were responsible;
• whether the deaths of Rangers personnel resulted from deliberate attacks, reckless driving or another legally established cause;
• and whether any public office-holder exceeded his or her lawful authority.

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan has itself called for an independent and impartial inquiry into the November 2024 violence, reporting deaths among both protesters and security personnel and raising concerns regarding the proportionality of force.

Political Statements Cannot Replace Evidence

There is another issue requiring careful legal examination: statements by government officials concerning the use of force.

If a minister or other public office-holder actually issued an operational order to use unlawful force, that order should be examined through the official record, written orders, communications, witness testimony, CCTV footage, forensic evidence and the chain of command.

However, a political statement or press conference alone does not establish criminal responsibility.

Similarly, the government's allegation that protesters attacked security personnel cannot by itself establish the guilt of every PTI worker. Individual criminal liability requires evidence against the particular accused person.

The Principle Must Apply Equally

The constitutional principle should be straightforward:

If a protester unlawfully killed a security official, that individual must face the law. If a state official unlawfully caused the death of a peaceful citizen, that official must also face the law.

No political affiliation should determine the application of justice.

Article 9 of the Constitution protects life and liberty according to law, while Article 16 protects peaceful assembly subject to lawful restrictions. Therefore, the state has the authority to maintain public order, but that authority does not become an unrestricted power to take life.

At the same time, the constitutional right to protest does not protect violence, armed attacks or other criminal conduct.

The Rana Sanaullah Question

Claims concerning Rana Sanaullah's alleged order to use force should also be investigated through documentary and testimonial evidence rather than treated as an established fact.

If evidence demonstrates that a public office-holder ordered unlawful force, the appropriate legal authorities should determine whether that conduct creates criminal, constitutional or administrative liability.

The same evidentiary standard must apply to allegations against protesters, political leaders and security personnel.

Justice Requires One Independent Record

The controversy surrounding November 26 cannot be permanently resolved through competing press conferences.

Pakistan needs one credible evidentiary record establishing:

Who died?
How did each person die?
Who caused each death?
Who issued the relevant orders?
Were those orders lawful?
And who, individually, should be held responsible?

A judicial or otherwise genuinely independent inquiry can answer those questions.

Until such an inquiry establishes individual responsibility, political allegations should not be converted into judicial conclusions.

The fundamental principle is simple:

The state must protect life, citizens must exercise protest peacefully, and every person who violates the law—whether a protester or a public official—must be accountable under the Constitution and law.